RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Marlon,

My opinion, but you should polish it considerably. Be more clear Marlon
and concise, and totally eliminate the are-you-crazy tone. This letter
is suitable if you are an individual, it is not suitable if being sent
on behalf of WISPA. While impassioned, it really is not professional and
will show WISPA in a bad light.

As I said, it is just my opinion my friend.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Anyone Mind if I send this out

Dear Sirs,

Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me.
KILLING 
me

I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces.  While I fully 
agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no 
auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or
wireless 
mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half.

What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that
of 
cable and DSL.  That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they
plug 
it in and poof, you have internet.  No truck roll.

At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and
LOW, 
LOW prices for it.

Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of
sense. 
Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless.

33' minimum antenna heights?  Pre programmed exclusion zones?  No
accounting 
for LOCAL terrain or foliage?  Geolocation of EVERY CPE device?  You've,
via 
your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the 
operators from using this band.  Very few people will be able to justify
the 
$500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems.
And 
who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses?

People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside 
their houses, not putting them back up!

There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height 
requirement.  You say it's needed to help deal with local interference 
issues etc.  But that's not likely the case.  If WE can't hear the 
broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not 
likely interfere either.  Especially at the very low signal levels you
have 
built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to

identify the owner of the ap.  Then the people that need to figure out 
anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where.
I'll 
already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too.

Speaking of GPS.  Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in
dual 
antenna systems for EVERY customer?  We'll need the rec. antenna AND a
GPS 
one for each cpe under your plan.

The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but
don't 
like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to
deploy 
and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions.  One
of 
the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees.
Now 
you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in

EVERY installation?  No thanks.  We'll go high when we need to,
otherwise we 
want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when
there's 
snow on the roof!

The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to
help 
you with your standard.  As it is, it looks like this standard was
developed 
by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather
than 
high volume devices.  Our industry has plenty of high margin products to

choose from already.  Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. 
Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right 
conditions.  What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap
products 
that will go through walls and trees etc.  If our customers wanted us to
put 
in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd
already 
be doing it.  People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay 
$500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers.

Thank you for you time,

Marlon K. Schafer
WISPA FCC committee chairman
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious 

RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the white space does
not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600
MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in
use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few
other small channels reserved for things like public safety.

 

Patrick Leary 
AVP WISP Markets 
Alvarion, Inc. 
o: 650.314.2628 
c: 760.580.0080 
Vonage: 650.641.1243 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

 

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little
more like it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take
offense and feel free to change it.  As you have explained to me,
stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes
gets the same effect with a little calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP
owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in
our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These
meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of
unlicensed frequencies.  We feel that not only our industry has
benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing
American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep
inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income
levels.

One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700
MHZ frequencies known as TV White Space.  The ability to have a
product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very
exciting.   We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low
power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural
areas.  This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your
successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if
we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful.

We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for
rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary
specifications submitted.  Our examples of this would be: 

33' minimum antenna heights,  pre-programmed exclusion zones,  with no
accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage.  As you know provision of
Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering
and implementation.  The specifications become even more focused with
the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)
device.  These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and
easily as many WISP's from using this band.  

Very few people will be able to justify the  $500 (probably closer to
$1000) installation costs of these systems.  We had hoped for an
in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are
confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to
homeowners.  It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service
to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario.
Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating
roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the
difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation
and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes
to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all
income level Americans.

WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna
height requirement.   We feel that the local interference issues have
been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal
abuse has been well documented by the FCC.  Low signal strength have
been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting
organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to
their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be
acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of
problems should one occur.  This uses the innovation we have embrassed
and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be
quickly qwelled locally.  This resolves our need for GPS units and other
expensive testing equipment not available to all providers.  It also
eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE,
another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or
unlicensed frequency.

Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the
spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC.
Again we

RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Forbes Mercy
Ouch did I really say embarrassed instead of embraced I really should proof 
this thing better, a few hanging sentences and other grammar goofs.  Oh well I 
did with what time I had so everyone else please don't suggest my need for 
English 101. 

Forbes

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like 
it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take offense and feel 
free to change it.  As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at 
it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little 
calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,


I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an 
organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP owners 
and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous 
opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These meetings have 
resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies.  We 
feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have 
been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and 
pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to 
all income levels.

One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ 
frequencies known as TV White Space.  The ability to have a product that 
actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting.   We have battled 
the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided 
innovative services to the most rural areas.  This is a testiment to the vision 
of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space 
just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful.

We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural 
development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary 
specifications submitted.  Our examples of this would be: 

33' minimum antenna heights,  pre-programmed exclusion zones,  with no 
accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage.  As you know provision of Wireless has 
little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. 
 The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of 
every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device.  These proposeals could 
eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band.  

Very few people will be able to justify the  $500 (probably closer to $1000) 
installation costs of these systems.  We had hoped for an in-house antenna 
system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting 
land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners.  It redirects costs 
from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run 
for every install' scenario.   Most of our operators have been pleased with the 
prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top 
work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of 
operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead 
goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all 
income level Americans.

WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height 
requirement.   We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with 
professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well 
documented by the FCC.  Low signal strength have been built into your standard 
for the incumbent detection mechanism.

Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to 
have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a 
beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the 
ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur.  This uses the 
innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet 
unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally.  This resolves our need for GPS units 
and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers.  It also 
eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another 
expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed 
frequency.

Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs 
to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC.   Again we reiterate 
the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be 
within reason.   The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of 
rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local 
responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs 
affordable.

As we have been in the past, the Wireless Internet 

RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread Patrick Leary
Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more
fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known
(I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for
them.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel
and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int
erference_


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the white space does
not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600
MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in
use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few
other small channels reserved for things like public safety.

 

Patrick Leary 
AVP WISP Markets 
Alvarion, Inc. 
o: 650.314.2628 
c: 760.580.0080 
Vonage: 650.641.1243 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

 

Marlon, 

I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little
more like it's from an organization then a person.  Please don't take
offense and feel free to change it.  As you have explained to me,
stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes
gets the same effect with a little calmer face.

Forbes Mercy

President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA)
an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for many years.  As you know we consist purely of WISP
owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in
our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings.  These
meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of
unlicensed frequencies.  We feel that not only our industry has
benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing
American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep
inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income
levels.

One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700
MHZ frequencies known as TV White Space.  The ability to have a
product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very
exciting.   We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low
power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural
areas.  This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your
successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if
we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful.

We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for
rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary
specifications submitted.  Our examples of this would be: 

33' minimum antenna heights,  pre-programmed exclusion zones,  with no
accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage.  As you know provision of
Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering
and implementation.  The specifications become even more focused with
the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)
device.  These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and
easily as many WISP's from using this band.  

Very few people will be able to justify the  $500 (probably closer to
$1000) installation costs of these systems.  We had hoped for an
in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are
confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to
homeowners.  It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service
to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario.
Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating
roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the
difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation
and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes
to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all
income level Americans.

WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna
height requirement.   We feel that the local interference issues have
been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal
abuse has been well documented by the FCC.  Low signal strength have
been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting
organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to
their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be
acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster

RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE

2007-01-29 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
Man, I's can really read readen, but he a writen! Marlon, ya all wanted to
mention Vasoline, but Mercy,he sliped it by with the K-Y!
chuck

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE


Anyone Mind if I send this out

Dear Sirs,

Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me.  KILLING

me

I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces.  While I fully 
agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no 
auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless 
mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half.

What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of 
cable and DSL.  That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug

it in and poof, you have internet.  No truck roll.

At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, 
LOW prices for it.

Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. 
Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless.

33' minimum antenna heights?  Pre programmed exclusion zones?  No accounting

for LOCAL terrain or foliage?  Geolocation of EVERY CPE device?  You've, via

your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the 
operators from using this band.  Very few people will be able to justify the

$500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems.  And 
who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? 
People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside 
their houses, not putting them back up!

There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height 
requirement.  You say it's needed to help deal with local interference 
issues etc.  But that's not likely the case.  If WE can't hear the 
broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not 
likely interfere either.  Especially at the very low signal levels you have 
built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism.

I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to 
identify the owner of the ap.  Then the people that need to figure out 
anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where.  I'll 
already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too.

Speaking of GPS.  Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual

antenna systems for EVERY customer?  We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS 
one for each cpe under your plan.

The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't 
like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy 
and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions.  One of 
the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees.  Now

you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in 
EVERY installation?  No thanks.  We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we

want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's 
snow on the roof!

The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help 
you with your standard.  As it is, it looks like this standard was developed

by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than 
high volume devices.  Our industry has plenty of high margin products to 
choose from already.  Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. 
Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right 
conditions.  What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products 
that will go through walls and trees etc.  If our customers wanted us to put

in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already 
be doing it.  People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay 
$500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers.

Thank you for you time,

Marlon K. Schafer
WISPA FCC committee chairman
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/